Trash, don't pick it up

Mitt Romney, intimate & in person:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

 ....

That's the part that's got people abuzz. What I found interesting was this:

They'll probably be looking at what the polls are saying. If it looks like I'm going to win, the markets will be happy. If it looks like the president's going to win, the markets should not be terribly happy. It depends of course which markets you're talking about, which types of commodities and so forth, but my own view is that if we win on November 6th, there will be a great deal of optimism about the future of this country. We'll see capital come back and we'll see—without actually doing anything—we'll actually get a boost in the economy. If the president gets reelected, I don't know what will happen. I can—I can never predict what the markets will do. Sometimes it does the exact opposite of what I would have expected. But my own view is that if we get a "Taxageddon," as they call it, January 1st, with this president, and with a Congress that can't work together, it's—it really is frightening.

Three things, reversed:

Third thing: Taxageddon, or the fiscal cliff,  the sequester, or whatever stupid term you want, is the result of GOP intransigence on taxes. They were bluffing that they would default on the debt, and Obama was willing to call their bluff. But they were also willing to play chicken with it in an absolutely unprecedented manner. The result was the sequester. An underlying theme of the Romney campaign, however, has been: give in to the blackmailers. Congress can't work with Obama, not because Obama has not reached out, been willing to cross pretty much every red line that any Democratic constituency has ever drawn (Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare... and even the insistence that deficit reduction have some taxes; the sequester had no tax increases, which was supposedly the red line for any budget deal--although in fairness, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts is a card in the Dems hand). No, Republicans in Congress have decided not to work with the President. Romney's argument is that this is frightening, and that accordingly, we should encourage this sort of reckless behavior.

Second thing: Gotta love me some magic. Given that the Romney forecast is for 12 million new jobs in his first term, which is the currently scheduled forecast, it strikes me that his plan is "no additional growth, no additional jobs, just additional tax and safety net cuts."

First thing: Markets are up in September, during which it's seemed as though Obama is pulling ahead. They went up considerably on the 6th, the day after Clinton's speech that so many apparently loved. And then they went up again in response to QE3, which Romney has criticized.

We knew Newt was toast, but...

...this makes it as close to official until a majority of delegates have been assigned.

Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire casino executive keeping Newt Gingrich’s presidential hopes alive, has relayed assurances to Mitt Romney that he will provide even more generous support to his candidacy if he becomes the Republican nominee, several associates said in interviews here.The signals from Mr. Adelson, whose politics are shaped in large part by his support for Israel, reflect what the associates said was his deep investment in defeating President Obama and his willingness to play a more prominent role in the Republican Party and conservative causes. The assurances have been conveyed in response to a highly delicate campaign by Mr. Romney and his top Jewish financial supporters to dissuade Mr. Adelson from adding to the $10 million that he and his wife have given to a pro-Gingrich “super PAC,” Winning Our Future, that has been tearing into Mr. Romney through television advertising.

Also, can anyone read this article and not come away with the impression of sustained coordination between the campaigns and the PACs? 

I've been under the impression since Newt's surge that this was really about Adelson flexing his muscles in the GOP. Newt was a pawn in Adelson's game; this is Adelson signaling to Romney what he wants in order to clear the field.

Family Structure and Political Ambition

Via the Monkey Cage, a new paper by Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox:

Based on data from the 2011 Citizen Political Ambition Study – a new, national survey of nearly 4,000 “potential candidates” for all levels of office – we provide the first thorough analysis of the manner in which traditional family arrangements affect the initial decision to run for office. Despite a substantial gender gap in political ambition, and the persistence of traditional family structures and gender roles among potential candidates, our findings culminate to provide clear evidence that traditional family dynamics do not account for the gender gap in potential candidates‟ interest in running for office. Neither marital and parental status, nor the division of labor pertaining to household tasks and childcare, predict interest in pursuing elective office, taking steps typically associated with a campaign, or actually declaring a candidacy. Further, family arrangements do not influence patterns of political recruitment or potential candidates‟ self-evaluations of their qualifications to run for office, which serve as two leading predictors of political ambition. This is not to downplay the fact that the gender gap in political ambition remains substantial and unchanging. But it is to suggest that family arrangements are not a contributing factor.

They conclude by suggesting that structural and psychological barriers--namely political recruitment and  self-perceived qualification--are the major barriers to more women running for office.

One thing that surprised me was the lack of a question about child care workers. I have moved in the nanny circuit, and there was a presumption among the class of families (women and men in law, business, education, and political activism) sampled here that a child needs a nanny, or more accurately, that a mother needs a nanny [1]. The father's business (and for many of the father, 'business' is a very generous description of what they do or the time burdens imposed upon them) was, supposedly, far too consuming for them to take on a greater share of parental responsibilities. More often than not, these fathers also believed that the burden was shared relatively equally, although most would concede that their wives bore a slight disproportion. They figured, well shit, the kids exhaust me... there is no way she could be doing much more than I am. The mother knows better, and they get a nanny. I wouldn't expect this to have much of an effect, and certainly I agree that the structural impediment of candidate recruitment is the more important cause. But it was an odd omission.

[1] This is a biased sample of anecdotes on my part: I knew these people through nannies, and so of course they had normalized the belief that all families with members pursuing professional careers needed nannies.